get_houdini_events

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes the pagination mechanism and cursor flow, which is valuable. However, it does not mention whether the operation has side effects (e.g., consuming/acknowledging events), preconditions (e.g., valid ctx), or what happens on empty results. This partial disclosure is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by the essential cursor detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core behavior and usage. It is appropriately sized and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, placing a high burden on the description. The description covers the primary purpose and pagination flow but omits details about required 'ctx', the 'limit' parameter, and the structure of the returned events. It is minimally viable but leaves the agent guessing about how to construct an initial call and interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only explains 'cursor' by stating it is returned from the previous page, adding meaning beyond the schema's default null. The other parameters 'ctx' (required) and 'limit' (with default 100) are not mentioned at all, leaving their purpose and format undocumented. This is a significant gap given zero schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: '分页拉取 Houdini 进程级事件' (paginated fetch of Houdini process-level events). The verb '拉取' (fetch) specifies the action, and the resource '进程级事件' is distinct from sibling tools like subscribe_houdini_events and unsubscribe_houdini_events, which manage event subscriptions. The scope is unambiguous and differentiates from alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for paginated retrieval of Houdini events, with the note that the cursor comes from the previous page's response, guiding how to iterate through pages. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like subscribe_houdini_events or exclude scenarios. The pagination context is clear but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.